On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Brian Morris wrote:
> my point is that IMHO there would be
> far less chance of debian-68k discontinuing if
> lenny were moved to debian-netbsd-68k instead
> of debian-linux-68k. that would be just for the new
> unstable/testing.
But then we have to migrate from NetBSD to Linux, so I don't see your
point.
> i don't see your logic at all either, maybe we are
> just not communicating. the port is in danger of dying.
And what would be different when abandoning `debian-linux-68k' and
creating `debian-netbsd-68k'? How much resources do you have available to
work on it?
> the design difference in netbsd is that there is more
> difference than as you say, there is little with linux. but
> it appears that results in fewer higher level differences.
Uh?
> to reiterate:
>
> Netbsd: more difference with models ("platform" is i believe the
> proper term) w/in 68k at kernel/toolchain level,
Why more differences?
> less issues at user level with practically no need for any separate
> attention to 68k packages vis a vis any other processors (i386 typically)
> that is why over there they don't build all binary. for the more
> esoteric packages it suffices to test on any architecture/platform.
> if people really think they want/need KDE for 68k they can build it
> themselves (but most likely no one cares to and no one does)
Really? If if compiles and works on ia32, it always compiles and works on
m68k?!?
> Linux: little differeence with models w/in 68k , much more difference
> of 68k with other architecture (aka i386).
Really? What big differences are there, besides drivers?
> Netbsd: apparently there are some packages known are Shared on
> the installation images which are the intermediate level where the
> brand of 68k does not matter but 68k matters for prebuilt binaries reason.
What are the problems with `debian-linux-68k':
- packages don't build:
o toolchain problems: NetBSD also uses gcc.
o no m68k assembler: problem would happen on NetBSD, too
o no m68k support in package (#ifdef issues etc.): problem would
happen on NetBSD, too
o missing TLS support: NetBSD may require TLS in the future, too.
- packages don't work:
o endianness bugs: found on other big endian platforms, too
o 32-bit values aligned on 32-bit instead of 16-big boundaries:
problem would happen on NetBSD, too
o m68k-specific kernel bugs: should not happen ;-)
- build daemons can't follow as they're slow: problem would happen
on NetBSD, too
- we can use more resources to maintain the port
Any other issues? Apart from the resources item for which I don't know,
I don't think there's any reason why `debian-netbsd-68k' would have less
issues than `debian-linux-68k'.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds